Prof.Cond.R.1.6 Violations: Sanction for Unauthorized Disclosure to Law Enforcement

Introduction

Dayton Bar Association v. Daly, Slip Opinion No. 2025-Ohio-1624 (May 8, 2025), represents a significant disciplinary decision by the Supreme Court of Ohio. At issue is whether an attorney may reveal confidential client information to a law-enforcement officer for the attorney’s personal benefit. The parties are the Dayton Bar Association (relator) and William Thomas Daly (respondent), an Ohio-admitted lawyer practicing in Florida. The key question is whether Daly’s two disclosures of sensitive client confidences to a police officer—made in an effort to recover allegedly stolen personal property—violated Prof.Cond.R. 1.6(a) and, if so, what sanction is appropriate.

Summary of the Judgment

The Supreme Court of Ohio unanimously held that Daly violated Prof.Cond.R. 1.6(a) by revealing confidential client information without any applicable exception or consent. The Court adopted the Board of Professional Conduct’s finding that the disclosures were made “with knowledge that doing so could cause his former client serious legal harm.” We impose an eighteen-month suspension of Daly’s license to practice law in Ohio, fully stayed on the conditions that he commit no further misconduct and pay the costs of the disciplinary proceedings. All other alleged rule violations were dismissed. Daly’s motions to seal the complaint counts and to adopt prior sealing orders were denied, and the relator’s motion to strike Daly’s supporting affidavit was granted.

Analysis

1. Precedents Cited

• Cleveland Metro. Bar Assn. v. Heben (2017-Ohio-6965): Attorney disclosed client confidences in a publicly filed affidavit in retaliation for a fee dispute. The Court imposed a fully stayed one-year suspension.
• Akron Bar Assn. v. Holder (2004-Ohio-2835): Attorney revealed client’s criminal record and disparaged a former client to third parties. The Court imposed a two-year suspension, eighteen months stayed.
• Disciplinary Counsel v. Holmes & Kerr (2018-Ohio-4308): Two attorneys exchanged confidential public-school-district client files in a personal relationship; each received a six-month suspension, fully stayed.
• Stark Cty. Bar Assn. v. Osborne (1982), Greater Cleveland Bar Assn. v. Watkins (1981), and Cleveland Bar Assn. v. Fox (1996-Ohio-250): Attorneys were indefinitely suspended for using client confidences to the client’s detriment.

These authorities illustrate the range of sanctions for Prof.Cond.R. 1.6(a) breaches. Lesser misconduct or the presence of substantial mitigating character evidence has resulted in stayed or shorter suspensions; aggravated breaches, especially where client harm is pronounced, have led to indefinite suspensions.

2. Legal Reasoning

Prof.Cond.R. 1.6(a) prohibits any disclosure of information relating to the representation of a client unless:

• The client gives informed consent;
• The disclosure is impliedly authorized to carry out the representation;
• Some limited exception in Rule 1.6(b) or 1.6(d) applies.

Daly’s two meetings with Officer Perfetti—during which he revealed that his client, “S.H.,” lived with a drug dealer, resorted to prostitution, used heroin and pills, and drove on unlawfully registered license plates—were motivated by a personal vendetta to recover a necklace Daly believed was stolen. No rule exception applied: there was no threat of imminent death or bodily harm, no financial fraud by the client, no legal obligation to comply with a tribunal, and no conflict-of-interest claim. Daly admitted at his disciplinary hearing that the information he disclosed was confidential, learned solely through attorney-client communications, and that he had no lawful basis to reveal it.

The Court also weighed the aggravating and mitigating factors in Gov.Bar R. V(13). On the aggravation side, Daly (1) acted with a selfish motive and retaliatory intent, (2) engaged in a pattern of repeated disclosures, and (3) was initially uncooperative in the disciplinary process. In mitigation, he had no prior discipline and ultimately admitted the violation. Because the risk of harm to S.H. (revocation of community control, new criminal charges, or loss of child custody) was significant, and no persuasive character evidence was offered, an eighteen-month suspension, fully stayed, was deemed the minimal sanction necessary to protect the public and preserve the integrity of the profession.

3. Impact

This decision reinforces the bedrock principle that client confidentiality is “very ancient, very sacred, and universally admitted” (Duttenhofer v. State, 1877). Attorneys are reminded that any disclosure to law enforcement—even for seemingly sympathetic motives—must be authorized by express client consent or squarely fall within a recognized exception. The conditional stay underscores the Court’s willingness to temper punishment where an attorney has no prior record and cooperates, yet it signals that personal vendettas have no place in the attorney-client relationship.

Future disciplinary panels will look to this decision when evaluating unauthorized disclosures to third parties or officials. In particular, attempts to use client confidences as leverage in disputes outside the representational context will be met with serious sanction, up to and including indefinite suspension.

Complex Concepts Simplified

• Prof.Cond.R. 1.6(a) – A rule that forbids a lawyer from revealing any information learned during the representation of a client, unless the lawyer has the client’s informed consent or a specific exception applies.
• Conditionally Stayed Suspension – A penalty where the court orders a lawyer’s suspension for a fixed period (here, eighteen months), but delays or “stays” the suspension on the condition that the lawyer commit no further misconduct and comply with certain requirements. If those conditions are violated, the suspension takes effect.
• Aggravating vs. Mitigating Factors – Criteria used to adjust the severity of discipline. Aggravating factors make a sanction harsher (e.g., selfish motive, pattern of misconduct), while mitigating factors make it lighter (e.g., clean record, cooperation).

Conclusion

Dayton Bar Association v. Daly marks a clear statement that attorneys must not weaponize client confidences against their former clients—especially by involving law enforcement for personal gain. The eighteen-month suspension, fully stayed on strict conditions, balances the need to protect the public and maintain trust in the legal profession with recognition of Daly’s lack of prior discipline and eventual cooperation. This precedent will guide future disciplinary assessments of Prof.Cond.R. 1.6(a) violations and reaffirm that client confidentiality remains sacrosanct.